+1 for something under airflow.google - though I'm now wondering if airflow.provider.google is a "better" name, as airflow.google is a little bit non-descript.
I'm not personally familiar with the detail of what product suite each product in Google is under, and I don't think our users should have to know/choose between cloud or gsuite. But I'm not against these subsubpackages either On 3 October 2019 18:02:34 BST, Leah Cole <[email protected]> wrote: >I think gdrive should be a part of gsuite, as drive is a part of gsuite >technically > >On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:01 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> As part of AIP-21 we are moving the operators to core. >> >> We have been discussing during the last few days how we should group >the >> operators from Google (we included Google Composer team) and we came >to the >> conclusion that we need to group the operators in sub-modules. >> >> We originally moved most of the operators to "gcp" but since then we >have >> more operators from Google that do not fit "gcp" (marketing >> platform, gsuite, and gdrive operators). >> >> airflow/google >> /cloud - [operators, hooks, examples] >> /marketing_platform - [operators, hooks, examples] >> /gdrive - [operators, hooks, examples] >> /gsuite - [operators, hooks, examples] >> >> This is much more reasonable and logical (and makes the operators >easy to >> find). It is still following AIP-21 (we have not defined the exact >naming >> for each provider). >> >> This is a change that comes in 2.0.0 we can still change it without >hassle >> so we thought it's a good idea to do it now. Does anyone have >anything >> against it ? If not we will soon move the operators there. >> >> J. >> -- >> >> Jarek Potiuk >> Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer >> >> M: +48 660 796 129 <+48%20660%20796%20129> <+48660796129 >> <+48%20660%20796%20129>> >> [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> >> > > >-- > >Leah Cole | Developer Programs Engineer | [email protected] | (925) >257-2112
